At what point did the US turn from Republic to Empire?

[Taverner]

I am not talking about Republicans or Democrats, but its clear the controllers of this country are not our elected representatives. They're not our senators or our assemblymen or whatever. They are the boards of Corporations, Banks, Industries.

They collude and form an oligarchy on our government.

We do that in a union its considered "class war", but when they do it its OK...

So what year was it?

Does it go back all the way to 1886? After all, Citizens United was just icing on the cake - the final message from our government "DO YOU FUCKING GET IT YET?"

[sakabatou]

1. I would say it started in the 80s

[BeFree]

3. Vietnam invasion was the hallmark

Eisenhower warned us and JFK tried to turn us away.

[apocalypsehow]

69. When JFK came to office, there were only 600 American troops in Vietnam; the day he died, there were

almost 20,0000, every one of them dispatched there on his orders.

How, exactly, did he try to "turn us away" from Vietnam? By sending nearly 20,000 combat troops there? :shrug:

:eyes:

[BeFree]

82. The story goes something like this

He was pressured at first into allowing more troops to go in, but then he objected and that's why he was killed. He tried to turn us away.

Just read some of his speeches and research some of JFK's documents and you'll be set.

[apocalypsehow]

83. That's an interesting story, alright. The only problem is that not a speck of it is accurate. n/t.

[BeFree]

86. Yes it is.

[apocalypsehow]

87. Perhaps in the comic books. In the real world of real history involving actual facts, no it isn't.

[pitohui]

2. never, the usa is not an empire

i think to be an empire you would have at least once have had to conquer and aquire territories

we can't conquer anyone altho i'm pretty sure we did win the war in the 1980s against grenada, primarily because grenada doesn't have an army and didn't shoot back

we can't beat vietnam, we can't beat afganistan, we literally can't beat ANYONE on our own (ww2 we would have lost if not for soviet russia on the other side of things!)

people don't even know what the word "empire" means -- the british had an empire, even the french did, even the dutch did, but the usa please....guam and the philiphines do not an empire make

we have never been an empire, we will never be an empire

yes, we have a class war, but that's not the same thing as having an empire, that's a different thing, it's easy to beat up on poor people and the little island of grenada

[BeFree]

5. We pretty much own the seas

The British empire was because they owned the seas at the time.

We don't occupy too many countries or overtly rule them, but we have our ways.
The US dollar IS the world's currency.

We are empire, just rather weak all things considered, and we are gonna be like Humpty Dumpty soon enough.

[pitohui]

7. you don't travel much, do you?

it's not yesterday any more

i wish the usa dollar WAS the world's currency but last time i checked my calendar it was 2010 not 1949


and if you think we own the seas that's just funny

[Spider Jerusalem]

26. The US Navy has eleven aircraft carriers in active service.

That's more than the rest of the world's navies combined. Maybe not quite "ownership of the seas", but pretty damned close.

[rhett o rick]

68. Ten of these carriers are nuclear powered. I dont believe any other country has any nuclear carriers

Very expensive overkill.

[WinkyDink]

37. Think again. Whose Navy do you think is bigger? What currency is the standard, if not the dollar?

The U.S. Navy is the largest in the world; its battle fleet tonnage is greater than that of the next 13 largest combined. It also has the world's largest carrier fleet, with 11 in service and one under construction.
http://www.julianstockwin.com/Worlds%20Navies.htm

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-13/asian-stocks-dollar-copper-climb-as-china-refrains-from-increasing-rates.html

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. Ok here are your markers as to being one

600+ bases around the world, last time I cared to count.

USD as a reserve Currency.

US control of the World Bank and the IMF... (Yes Bretton Woods)

US Control (UNTIL RECENTLY) of commercial policies around the world.

You may want to check on things like our control of Latin America as a declared area of US Influence, going back to the 1800s quite official by 1898.

It is also propaganda that we don't have one... but we do...

Oh and people abroad know this.

[Marr]

18. That's not really true. The British didn't take India by force.

They took it with political maneuvering and money. You don't have to use a lot of overt military force to build an empire, and I'd definitely say the US has been an empire since at least the end of WW2.

[EFerrari]

21. We have hundreds of bases all over the world, too. n/t

[WinkyDink]

36. Bwahahaha! Maybe YOU haven't checked lately where our ships, subs, bases, and wars are--->

http://militarybases.com/

[dgibby]

45. History does not agree with you.

Since the first Europeans set foot on land, we have been been busy building an Empire. We defeated the Native Peoples, the Brits, Spanish, French, Germans, Japanese, acquiring land along the way. We've established hundreds of military bases around the world, have the worlds largest Navy, control the World Bank and IMF, run the School of the America's, have CIA operatives stationed around the world. In addition, we've overthrown many foreign governments, etc,etc.

The idea that we are not an Empire(albeit one in decline) is laughable.

[Lucian]

58. The colonists conquered this country from the Native Americans.

And a lot of the West from Spain and Mexico.

I think the US qualifies as an empire.

[14thColony]

77. Your definition of 'empire' is a 19th century anachronism

Political systems evolve and adapt. It's ludicrous to assert that all empires must follow a specific (outdated) formula to deserve the name, without regard to the era in which they exist. Political theory must conform to reality; reality is not expected to conform to political theory.

[Bigmack]

92. Any US history book will help...

read one soon.

We stole the West from the natives the Mexicans thru wars.

We took Johnson and Midway Island in the Pacific. Along with Wake and Samoa.

We got Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines (since freed) from Spain. (And then killed 200,000 of them in the Insurrection.) We took Hawaii from the natives. We ran Nicaragua from 1912-33.

We bought Alaska from Russia, who stole it from the natives.

We took the Marshalls after WWII.

Today, we have over 700 bases overseas, a fleet in every ocean, and enough nuclear weapons to kill.... well, a lot of people.

We're an Empire. Just counting our losing wars doesn't do it.

[gateley]

4. I think right after we embraced fascism. nt

[ZombieHorde]

6. When we started stealing the land from the indigenous people. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. That would be the Virginia and Massachusetts Plantations

and last time I checked those were done under the TUDOR's Letters Patent. In other words it was done in the name of the BRITISH EMPIRE.

[Spider Jerusalem]

38. There was no British Empire in 1607.

There was no Kingdom of Great Britain as such either (not until the Act of Union in 1707). England and Scotland were separate kingdoms. And the Virginia Company and the Plymouth Company were chartered by James I (who was a Stuart).

[nadinbrzezinski]

59. THis is the first letter pattent issued in 1578

To Sir Gilbert

Letters Patent to Sir Humfrey Gylberte June 11, 1578. (1)
Elizabeth by the grace of God Queeneof England, &c. To all people to whom these presents shall come, greeting.

Know ye that of our especiall grace, certaine science and meere motion, we have given and granted, and by these presents for us, our heires and successours, doe give and graunt to our trustie and welbeloved servaunt Sir Humphrey Gilbert of Compton, in our castle of Devonshire Knight, and to his heires and assignee for ever, free libertie and licence from time to time, and at all times for ever hereafter, to discover, finde, search out, and view such remote, heathen and barbarous lands, countreys and territories not actually possessed of any Christian prince or people, as to him, his heirs & assignee, and to every or any of them, shall seeme good: and the fame to have, hold, occupie and enjoy to him, his heires and assignee for ever, with all commodities, jurisdictions, and royalties both by sea and land; and the said sir Humfrev and all such as from time to time by licence of us, our heiress and successours, shall goe and travell thither, to inhabits or romaine there, to build and fortifie at the discretion of the sayde Sir Humfrey, and of his heires and assignee, the statutes or actes of Parliament made against Fugitives, or against such as shall depart, romaine or continue out of our Realme of England without licence, or any other acte, statute, lawe or matter whatsoever to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding. And wee doe likewise by these presents, for US, our heires and successours, give full authoritie and power to the saide Sir Humfrey, his heires and assignee, and every of them, that tree and they, and every of any of them, shall and may at all and every time and times hereafter, have, take and lead in the same voyages, to travell thitherward, and to inhabits there with him, and every or any of them, such and so many of our subjects as shall willingly accompany him and them, and every or any of them, with sufficient shipping and furniture for their transportations, so that none of the same persons, nor any of them be such as hereafter shall be specially restrained by us, our heires and successors. And further, that he the said Humfrey, his heires and assignee, and every or any of them shall have, hold, occupy and enjoy to him, his heires and assignee, and every of them for ever, all the soyle of all such lands. countries, & territories so to be discovered or possessed as aforesaid, and of all Cities, Castles, Townes and Villages, and places in the same, with the rites, royalties and jurisdictions, as well marine as other, within sayd lands or countreys of the seas thereunto adjovning, to be had or used with ful power to dispose thereof, & of every part thereof in fee simple or otherwise, according to the order of the laws of England, as near as the same conveniently may be, at his, and their will & pleasure, to any person then being, or that shall romaine within the allegiance of us, our heires and successours, paying unto us for all services, dueties and demaunds, the fift part of all the oare of gold and silver, that from time to time, and at all times after such discoverie, subduing and possessing shall be there gotten: all which hands, countreys and territories, shall for ever bee holden by the said Sir Humfrey, his heires and assignee of us, our heires and successors by homage, and by the sayd payment of the sayd fift part before reserved onely for all services.

And moreover, we doe by these presents for us, our heires and successours, give and graunt licence to the sayde Sir Humfray Gilbert, his heires or assignee, and to every of them, that tree and they, and every or any of them shall, and may from time to time, and all times for ever hereafter, for his and their defence, encounter, expulse, repell and resift, as well by Sea as by land, and by all other wayes whatsoever, all and every such person and persons whatsoever, as without the special licence and liking of the sayd Sir Humfrey, and of his heires and assignee, shall attempt to inhabits within the sayd countreys, or any of them, or within the space of two hundreth leagues nerre to the place or places within such countreys as aforesayd, if they shall not bee before planted or inhabited within the limiter aforesayd, with the subjects of any Christian prince, being amitie with her-Majesty, where the said sir Humfrey, his heires or assignee, or any of them, or his, or their or any of their associates or companies, shall within sixe yeeres next ensuing, make their dwellings and abidings, or that shall enterprise or attempt at any time hereafter unlawfully to annoy either by Sea or land, the said sir Humfrey, his heires or assignee, or any of them, or his, or their, or any of their companies: giving and graunting by these presents, further power and authorite to the sayd sir Humfrey, his heires and assignee, and every of them from time to time, and at all times for ever hereafter to take and surprise by all maner of meanes whatsoever all and every person and persons, with their shipper, vessels, and other goods and furniture, which without the licence of the sayd sir Humfrey, or his heires or assignee as aforesayd, shall bee found traffiquing into any harborough or harboroughs creeke or creekes within the limites aforesayde, the subjects of our Realmes and dominions, and all other persons in amitie with us, being driven by force of tempest or shipwracke onely excepted, and those persons and every of them with their ships, vessels, goods, and furniture, to detaine and possesse, as of good and lawful prize, according to the discretion of him the sayd sir Humfrey, his heires and assignee, and of every or any of them. And for uniting in more perfect league and amitie of such countreys, lances and territories so to bee possessed and inhabited as aforesayde, with our Realmes of England and Ireland, and for the better encouragement of men to this enterprise: wee doe by these presents graunt, and declare, that all such countreys so hereafter to bee possessed and inhabited as aforesayd, from thencefoorth shall bee of the allegiance of us' our heiress and successours. And wee doe graunt to the sayd sir Humfrey, his heires and assignee, and to all and every of them, and to all and every other person and persons, being of our allegiance, whose names shall be noted or entred in some of our courts of Record, within this our Realme of England, and that with the assent of the said sir Humfrey, his heires or assignee, shall nowe in this journey for discoverie, or in the second journey for conquest hereafter, travel to such lands, countries and territories as aforesaid, and to their and every of their heires: that they and every or any of them being either borne within our sayd Realmes of England or Ireland, or within any other place within our allegiance, and which hereafter shall be inhabiting within any the lands, countreys and territories, with such licence as aforesayd, shall and may have, and enjoy all the priveleges of free denizens and persons native of England, and within our allegiance: any law, custome, or usage to the contrary notwithstanding

And forasmuch, as upon the finding out, discovering and inhabiting of such remote lands, countreys and territories, as aforesayd, it shall be neeessarie for the safetie of all men that shall adventure themselves in those journeys or voiages, to determine to live together In Christian peace and civil quietnesse each with other, whereby every one may with more pleasure and profit, enjoy that whereunto they shall attaine with great Paine and perill: wee for us, our heires and successours are likewise pleased and contented, and by these presents doe give and graunt to the sayd sir Humfrey and his heires and assignee for ever, that he and they, and every or any of them, shall and may, from time to time, for ever hereafter within the sayd mentioned remote lands and countreys, and in the way by the Seas thither, and from thence, have full and meere power and authoritie to correct, punish, pardon, governe and rule by their, and every or any of their good discretions and policies, as well in causes capitall or criminall, as chill, both marine and other, all such our subjects and others, as shall from time to time hereafter adventure themselves in the sayd journeys or voyages habitative or possessive, or that shall at any time hereafter inhabite any such lands, countreys or territories as aforesayd, or that shall abide within two hundred leagues of any sayd place or places, where the sayd sir Humfrey or his heires, or assignee, or any of them, or any of his, or their associate or companies, shall inhabite within sixe yeers next ensuing the date hereof, according to such statutes, lawes and ordinances, as shall be by him the said sir Humfrey, his heires and assignee, or every, or any of them, devised or established for the better governement of the said people as aforesayd: so alwayes that the sayd statutes, lawes and ordinances may be as neere as conveniently may, agreeable to the forme of the lawes & pollicy of England: and also, that they be not against the true Christian faith or religion now professed in the Church of England, nor in any wise to withdraw any of the subjects or people of those lands or places from the allegiance of us, our heires or successours, as their immediate Soveraignes under God. And further we do by these presents for us, our heires and successours, give and graunt full power and authority to our trustie and well-beloved counsellor, sir William Cecill Knight, lord Burleigh, our high treasurer of England, and to the.lord treasurer of England of us, for the time being and to the privie counsel! of us, our heires and successours, or any fours of them, for the time being that he, they, or any foure of them, shall, and may from time to time, and at all times hereafter, under his or their handes or scales by vertue of these presents, authorize and licence the sayd sir Humfrey Gilbert, his heires and assignee, and every or any of them by him and themselves, or by their or any of their sufficient attorneys, deputies, officers, ministers, factors and servants, to imbarke and transport out of our Realmes of England and Ireland, all, or any of his or their goods, and all or any of the Roods or his or their associates and companies, and every or any of them, with such other necessaries and commodities of any of our Realmes, as to the said lord treasurer or foure of the privie counsel! of us, our heires, or successours for the time being, as aforesayd, shall be from time to time by his or their wisedoms or discretions thought meete and convenient for the better reliefe and supportation of him the sayd sir Humfrey, his heires and assignee, and every or any of them, and his and their, and every or any of their said associates and companies, any act, statute, lawe, or other thing to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding.

Provided alwayes, and our will and pleasure is, and wee doe hereby declare to all Christian Kings, princes and states, that if the said sir Humfrey, his heires or assignee, or any of them, or any other by their licence or appointment, shall at any time or times hereafter robbe or spoile by Sea or by land, or doe any act of unjust and unlawful! hostilitie to any of the Subjects of us, our heires, or successours, or any of the Subjects of any King, prince, ruler, governour or state being then in perfect league and amitie with us, our heires or successours: and that upon such injurie, or upon just complaint of any such prince, ruler, governour or state, or their subjects, wee, our heires or successours shall make open proclamation within any of the portes of our Realme of England commodious, that the said Sir Humfrey, his heires or assignee or any other to whom these our Letters patents may extend, shall within the terme to be limited by such proclamations, make such restitution and satisfaction of all such injuries done, so as both we and the said Princes, or others so complayning, may horde us and themselves fully contented: And if the saide Sir Humfrey, his heires and assignee, shall not make or cause to bee made satisfaction accordingly, within such time so to be limited; that then it shall be lawfull to us, our heires and successours, to put the said Sir Humfrey, his heires and assignee, and adherents, and all the inhabitants of the said places to be discovered as is aforesaide, or any of them out of our allegiance and protection, and that from and after such time of putting out of protection the saide Sir Humfrey, and his heires, assignes, adherents and others so to be put out, and the said places within their habitation, possession and rule, shall be out of our protection and allegiance, and free for all princes and others to pursue with hostilitie as being not our Subjects, nor by us any way to be advowed, maintained or defended, nor to be holden as any of ours, nor to our protection, dominion or allegiance any way belonging, for that expresse mention, &c. In witnesse whereof, &c. Witnesse ourselfe at Westminster the 11, day of June, the twentieth yeere of our raigne. Anno Dom 1578.

PER IPSAM REGINAM, &C.

(1) Text in Sir Humfrey Glylberte and His Enterprise of Colonization in America. By Rev. Carlos Shatter. Publications of the Prince Society. ( Boston, 1903.) pp. 95-102. Back

Note to mods, this is well within the public realm.

No there was no England, this was still a pretty backwards collection of countries with border marches and the rest, but HERE is where the effort starts. And here is where things will go the way they go.

Here are the Cabot Patents, granted under Henry VII, last time I checked he was STILL a Tudor.

The Letters Patents of King Henry the Seventh Granted unto Iohn Cabot and his Three Sonnes, Lewis, Sebastian and Sancius for the the Discouerie of New and Unknowen Lands. (1)
Henry, by the grace of God, king of England and France, and lord of Ireland, to all to whom these presents shall come, Greeting.

Be it knowen that we haue giuen and granted, and by these presents do giue and grant for vs and our heiress to our welbeloued Iohn Cabot citizen of Venice, to Lewis, Sebastian, and Santius, sonnes of the sayd Iohn, and to the heires of them, and euery of them, and their deputies, full and free authority, leaue, and power to saile to all parts, countreys, and seas of the East, of the West, and of the North, vnder our banners and ensignes, with fine ships of what burthen or quantity soeuer they be, and as many mariners or men as they will haue with them in the sayd ships, vpon their owne proper costs and charges, to seeke out, discouer, and finde whatsoever isles, countreys, regions or prouinces of the heathen and infidels whatsoeuer they be, and in what part of the world soeuer they be, which before this time haue bene vnknowen to all Christians: we haue granted to them, and also to euery of them, the heires of them, and euery of them, and their deputies, and haue giuen them licence to set vp our banners and ensignes in euery village, towns, castle, isle, or maine land of them newly found. And'that the aforesayd Iohn and his sonnes, or their heires and assignee may subdue, occupy and possesse all such townes, cities, castles and isles of them found, which they can subdue, occupy and possesse, as our vassals, and lieutenants, getting vnto vs the rule, title, and jurisdiction of the same villages, townes, castles, & firme land so found. Yet so that the aforesayd Iohn, and his sonnes and heires, and their deputies, be holden and bounder of all the fruits, profits, gaines, and commodities growing of such navigation, for euery their voyage, as often as they shall arrine at our port of Bristoll (at the which port they shall be bound and holden onely to arrine) all maner of necessary costs and charges by them made, being deducted, to pay vnto vs in wares or money the lift part of the capital! gaine so gotten. We gluing and granting vnto them and to their heires and deputies, that they shall be free from all paying of customer of all and singular such merchandise as they shall be free from all paying of customes of all and singular they shall bring with them from those places so newlie found.

And moreover, we haue giuen and granted to them, their heires and deputies, that all the firme lands, isles, villages, townes, castles and places whatsoever they be that they shall chance to finde, may not of any other of our subjects be frequented or visited without the licence of the foresayd John and his sonnes, and their deputies, vnder payee of forfeiture as well of their ships as of all and singular goods of all them that shall presume to saile to those places so found. Willing, and most straightly commanding all and singular our subjects as well on land as on sea, appointed officers, to giue good assistance to the aforesaid John, and his sonnes and deputies, and that as well in arming and furnishing their ships or vessels, as in provision of quietnesse, and in buying of victuals for their money, and all other things by them to be provided necessary for the sayd naulgation, they do gine them all their helpe and fanour. In witnesse whereof we haue caused to be made these our lettres patents. Witnesse our selfe at Westminister, the fift day of March, In the eleventh yeere of our reigne.-

SECOND CABOT PATENT
REFERENCES
Letters Patent. February 3,1498.
Latin text in Harrise John and Sebastian Cabot (1896.) pp. 393, 394.

They are in many ways equivalent to the patents granted to Columbus by the Spanish Monarchs. Yes, Aragon and Castille were united by the marriage, but to call them Spanish Kings of a unites Spain... the process was just beginning. And it was the beginning of an Empire as well.

The effort to start the Virginia company was first an INDIVIDUAL effort. It took a few failures, including the death of Gilbert and the failure of of Roanoke, that finally they went into an investment company. But the effort did not start with the Stuarts, but the Tudors. And history might have been a little different if Henry VII listened to Columbus's brother in the 1490s.

[dgibby]

44. Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a Winner! n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

8. I don't know. I think it had something to do with a clone army.

But, really, the plot line was hard to follow.

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. You can trace it to the 1944 Bretton Woods Agreement

when the US Dollar officially replaced the British Sterling as the Reserve Currency.

That is a critical marker.

Why the day we are no longer the reserve currency will be a critical date too.

And no, things will not be great all of a sudden either.

[JoseGaspar]

11. Around the time of Monroe...

... but that was old style empire.

If you mean in the modern sense, it is usually associated with finance capital. The Civil War got rid of the fetters to empire while transforming a country with 3 millionaires into one of 1500. The railroads came next, then the trusts, and then finance capital ("Wall Street"). It was all fully formed by the dawn of the 20th century (the "Great White Fleet", the "Spanish War", etc.).

If you are asking when the U.S. became the preeminent empire, that was after WWII.

[EFerrari]

22. That's a good rundown. n/t

[glitch]

62. Thank you, nice summary. When did the empire officially start to decline?

Just curious on your opinion.

[JoseGaspar]

66. Sorry that I can't answer the question more briefly than this:

The U.S. emerged from the World War with three great advantages. The war left the United Sates largely untouched while it devastated the competition. Something greater than 60% of all industrial production was based in the U.S. In addition, the U.S. dollar replaced the Pound Sterling as the International Reserve Currency. Finally, the war broke up the old colonial monopolies.

Together, the three factors above bought something like "twenty good years". Still, the elements of imperial preeminence were beginning to disintegrate even before the inevitable "decline" began (as is the nature of such things). The reconstruction of Europe and Japan were part of that changing balance of power as was the increasing independence of over 100 newly emerging nation states.

By the time of Vietnam, the "limits of power" were fairly obvious. By the time of the stagflation of the 1970s, the economic limits of the Post-WWII regime were felt for the first time. One result was that domestic incomes stopped growing... and eventually began to decline. The broad "middle-class", which had been an essential byproduct of empire, began to stagnate for the first time. With that, the primacy of the "domestic market", which had been a unique feature of American Empire... that domestic consumption ceased to keep pace with the growth of capital. A newly redoubled emphasis on international investment and markets was one natural result.

The irony is that the collapse of the Socialist Bloc both gave new life to the Empire and sped up its actual decline. The momentary monopoly gained by the "only superpower" fed the Globalization movement. In turn, very large productive capacities but relatively small markets were opened up for the first time. There is a a short but precise narrative on this in the most unlikely of sources. In Alan Greenspan's paper, "The Crisis", written about the Great Recession of 2008, there is a synopsis on the economic impacts. Essentially the worldwide labor force for export production tripled even as the last limits on international investment fell away.

Now, one of the fundamental contradictions in modern empire becomes apparent. Imperial "success" is fundamentally international but empires are national forms. The colonial office, international "assistance", commercial subsidies, and most importantly, the military, are all entirely dependent on the revenues of the nation state, but in the absence of international limitations, capital is not. A variation on a Roman theme is one inevitable result. The national market becomes equivalent to the international... with an accelerating "race to the bottom". Capital goes on as before but, each downward ratchet increases the disparity in the Imperial home country between imperial demands and imperial means. The nation state begins to whither, even as its fundamental role as imperial infrastructure is actually enhanced.

When does decline begin? From the beginning, but really and obviously since the Great Recession...

One very obvious result which is very apparent here is the resulting political crisis. This is a direct product of the breakup of old political alliances which have long ceased to remain operative, but have yet to be replaced by new ones founded on the new social conditions.

And that is my 2 cents.

[glitch]

76. Wow! Beautifully laid out. Thank you. :)

I heard a talk a few weeks back, I think it might've been Robert Reich (can't remember exactly, brain saturated -- information overload, must take a net break!), who stressed that the US can end its empire without ending its republic (as opposed to devolving into a feudal state post-empire).
What do you think are the chances of that?

[JoseGaspar]

80. I think that Reich thinks that Empire was the result of "policy"...

... so in that sense, I can't agree. I suppose you could argue that the British (or the French or the Dutch, etc.) achieved that but that was in the shadow of U.S. ascendancy... and it took decades of defeat... and it is not entirely resolved, even today. In any case which Republic would one "return" to if one could snap one's fingers? Which previous dynamic results in a present day one iota different from the one we have?

On the other hand, I don't think the future is a choice between empire or post-empire-feudal-state either. I think it is simply the end of Empire, and we fight to soften the landing.

Most people didn't get shit from Empire (although they were promised the moon). In return, they forfeited nearly everything.

I also know that when the Goths finally took Rome, over half the population turned out to greet them as liberators.

Forward... always forward...;-)

[glitch]

81. Interesting. So you think we'll resolve to some civil state that isn't necessarily a republic.

If I am reading your response correctly.

I think possibly the republic we "return" to could be the ideal people, especially disenfranchised people, have been fighting to create. Not the white male landowners, but those who have slowly achieved citizenship with ostensibly full rights over the centuries. And I know we still have a way to go on that subject.
A lot of people have been putting in a lot of effort to actually fulfill the promise of a democratic republic. That we have never fully achieved it should not be interpreted to mean there was never an ideal fought for, abandoned to futility and forgotten now. I don't think you're saying that, just putting it out there.

Anyway, forward, agreed. Keeping in mind "To know where you're going you must know where you've been" (paraphrasing Randall Robinson, who also said "Ignorance will kill you").

Thanks for the chat. :hi:

[OHdem10]

13. 1980s under Reagan when he changed the economic model

so as to give Business more control and power.

Ir was during this time that it was decided that
Business would no long have an obligation to workers
or even the country. Business sole responsibility
was to make money and their obligation was to shareholders
only. This may sound unimpressive but it changed our
world. Now the rich could only get richer and the
poor could only get poorer and the poor Middle class
would fade away.

[Hardrada]

14. If we were a real Roman-style empire we would have invaded Cuba by now.

[Art_from_Ark]

16. We did invade Cuba, in 1898

and again in 1961. No point in trying another invasion.

[Hardrada]

25. I guess we learned a lesson!

[hunter]

67. I've always figured Cuba has nukes or something.

Maybe Fidel Castro stole the Ark of the Covenant from Warehouse 13.

"Shut your eyes, Marion. Don't look at it, no matter what happens!"

Everyone knows what happened to the Nazis.

[Kaleva]

15. if you'd ask Native Americans, they'd probably say right when the Revolutionary War ended.

[David Zephyr]

17. Gore Vidal has written a lot on this very subject.

But he has underscored your point in great detail and I agree with you and Gore.

[TheKentuckian]

19. Due to slavery, genocide, and denial of suffrage as well as voting being restricted

to white property owners the republic thing has always been dicey and the empire started around the turn of the 20th century and took off like a rocket after WWII.

[Douglas Carpenter]

20. December 8. 1941 - the day after Japan bombed Peal Harbor

Our course the 1898 entry of the United States into war with Spain and in particular the invasion of the Philippines and later the almost genocidal suppression of Filipino independence was a huge step in that direction - extending U.S. military and political power way outside its historic sphere of influence.

But until the U.S. entry into World War II - the U.S. was a relatively minor player on the world stage at least in relationship to military power and in comparison to the United Kingdom.

Needless to say, the end of the Soviet Union created a unique situation in which the U.S. was left as the sole super power in the world dominating a single-economic system world with U.S. military spending now roughly equaling the military spending of every other military budget of every other nation-state of the entire world combined together.

[KharmaTrain]

23. Don't Forget The Occupation Of Haiti

In the 1930s that set the stage for Papa Doc and his reign of terror.

I would agree...the US Empire truly emerged due to World War II. The British and French were so weakened by that war it created a void the US gladly jumped into.

[Javaman]

61. I agree...

but I think it became truly apparent toward the end of the war.

Two things jump out at me.

1) The war manufacturing industry was operating at such a level, if scaled back would have caused a massive depression. One of Truman's efforts in the post war period was preventing such.

So they were retooled and started turning out cars and washing machines.

2) It appeared that the soviets were in no rush to dismantle their war machine either. They found that keeping a war machine going was good for business and distracting the people.

Both points culminated in anti-west and anti-soviet (communism) by both countries respectively.

By explaining away the military industrial complex as a need to fight communism, it allowed the US economy to explode economically. Pretty much the same for the soviets. Only their industrial base was not nearly advanced as ours and were constantly playing catch up at a massive cost.

The glossed over issue of what to do with such a massive military (which at first was starting to be scaled back for peacetime) was solved by doing the bidding of various corporations (nothing new) around the world under the guise of spreading democracy. (somewhere along the way, madison ave blurred the concept of corporations and democracy to mean almost one and the same)

By the end of the 1950's we were a "proto-empire". We had bases all over the world "fighting communism", in reality, serving the corporate thirst for more and more profits.

By the time the soviets collapsed, we had attained empire status. Meaning, we were the largest economy, had the largest military and controlled the largest amount of influence in the world.

However, like all empires, the seed of rot was planted in the 1970s, but didn't germinate until trickle down economics. It began to metastasize under the 2nd term of ray-gun, went into a temporary remission under clinton (but never went away. NAFTA didn't help) and went into full blown cancer under george w. moron*.

Empires fall the same way really big buildings do (no reference to 9/11). They appear to start off slow, then as momentum picks up, they appear to accelerate before hitting the ground.

We are picking up momentum. The end of empire is near.

[Spider Jerusalem]

24. The 1890's.

The Spanish-American War, the acquisition of Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and also the Philippines. The US has effectively been an empire for over a century. It was less obvious when other empires were on the global stage; Britain was still the dominant global empire up until WWII, and after WWII the Soviet Union was the great counterweight to the US. Today though there is no global military and economic power of equal dominance; China is a rising challenger economically, but militarily they aren't in the same class (certainly not so far as force projection capability).

[ixion]

34. Bingo

[Ichingcarpenter]

48. That's my call..... Mark Twain agreed and so do I

His writings on the war should be taught in schools

[14thColony]

79. Yep, our defeat of Spain is usually cited

as the beginning of empire in the classical sense.

[Canuckistanian]

89. Yep

The Spanish-American war was pretty bad. The birth of propaganda, jingoism, dirty tricks and extreme racism.

It was a lesson that SHOULD have been taken to heart long before Vietnam or San Salvador.

[mmonk]

27. It has been steady through our history, except for a few hiccups.

What's new is the shock doctrine being done on us as opposed to just the states we have controlled.

[quaker bill]

28. The cold war

post WWII, when the troops did not come home. Many are still there.

[leveymg]

29. I guess the more telling question would be, when did The American Empire go into decline?

I'd trace that to the coup of November 22, 1963. The Vietnam War and then emperors Nixon, Reagan and Bush, and Bush the Lesser sealed our fate.

[eShirl]

30. to me, it feels like it was the Arab Oil Embargo in the early 70s

[leveymg]

32. That event marked the first major rebellion among rival economic powers,

aided by the oil giants, who had long been behind-the-scenes power players.

[Spider Jerusalem]

31. 1970.

1970 was the year that US domestic oil production peaked. Lacking self-sufficiency in its major energy resource, the decline of an empire is assured. (As a point of reference: the British Empire ran largely on coal, for power plants, locomotives, ships, as well as domestic heating and industrial use; British coal production peaked in 1913.)

[leveymg]

33. Looks like we're all in agreement: big oil seems to have been at the heart

of the Rise and the Fall, in various ways. Daniel Yergin's "The Prize" may be the single most important work on 20th Century American and World History.

[glitch]

63. I think so too. There was a small window where we could have turned around.

Reagan closed it, the rest simply added shutters, bars, and bricks.

[Le Taz Hot]

35. Iirc, December 19, 2000.

The Coup made it official.

[TexasObserver]

39. When the US Supreme Court killed Democracy in 2000.

[rucky]

Manifest Destiny

even the name of it sounds creepy

[rucky]

40. Manifest Destiny

even the name of it sounds creepy

[slackmaster]

41. 1792

The Whiskey Tax.

[unblock]

42. i think the real question is when were we ever NOT an empire?

we started off as part of the british empire and while we split from it and created a novel form of government with a republic-like structure, we never really stopped our "empire" attitude or behavior.

with only very brief respite, we have been conquering lands and peoples from colonial days on.


i don't think "empire" and "republic" are mutually exclusive, unless you want to define "empire" narrowly as meaning having an emperor. if "empire" means an expansive, belligerant, conquering, annexing, and colonizing nation, then that's what we've always been, notwithstanding our "republic" form of government.

[sarcasmo]

43. Ronnie Raygun.

[babydollhead]

46. RAY-GUN

[Puregonzo1188]

47. I'm always surprised by how many DUers put the Empire mark so late, even after what mainstream text

books call "The Age of Imperialism" you know the period after the Spanish American War and before World War I when invaded and occupied numerous countries in this hemisphere?

But even do to that is commit when Chomsky refers to as the "saltwater fallacy"--it's only imperialism if you cross a body of saltwater. We took half of an entire nation (Mexico) as our own territory.

And before that--Manifest Destiny. Every President has supported an expansionist foreign policy. Every. It used to be to occupy whole parts of the continent and when finally expanded as far as we could what happened--economic depression? And what was the consensus from those who know so much--we need new markets. And so we took the Philippines and Cuba from Spain. And that was just the beginning.

[nadinbrzezinski]

60. In it's modern official mature form

I do put it at Bretton Woods... since the last stage was taken, WE were now the reserve currency.

IN a more primitive form, definitely 1898 and the war with spain.

Proo-Empire, if you want to go that far, 1848, the least popular war of the 19th century.

[Davis_X_Machina]

49. 1846. Mexican War. You can look it up.

[treestar]

50. Unrec'd crazy conspiracy stuff

It's one thing to disagree with your fellow Americans or think they are letting themselves get deluded. It can be frustrating. But they do vote and they could participate more if they wanted to.

The law is the law and if we don't like it, that may just be something we have to live with.

[rhett o rick]

53. You always are on the side of the oligarchy. Is this Karl Rove? nm

[snooper2]

64. turtle?

[rhett o rick]

70. Plez explain what that mean. nm

[snooper2]

73. k-

tur·tle1   /ˈtɜrtl/ Show Spelled Show IPA noun,plural-tles, (especially collectively) -tle, verb,-tled, -tling.
–noun
1.any reptile of the order Testudines, comprising aquatic and terrestrial species having the trunk enclosed in a shell consisting of a dorsal carapace and a ventral plastron.
2.(not used technically) an aquatic turtle as distinguished from a terrestrial one.Compare tortoise (def. 1).


From Wiki
Turtle
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Turtle (disambiguation).
Turtles
Fossil range: 215–0 Ma
PreЄЄOSDCPTJKPgNTriassic to Recent

Florida Box Turtle Terrapene carolina
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Subphylum: Vertebrata
Class: Reptilia
Order: Testudines
Linnaeus, 1758 <1>
Suborders
Cryptodira
Pleurodira
and see text

Diversity
14 extant families with ca. 300 species

blue: sea turtles, black: land turtles

Turtles are reptiles of the order Testudines (the crown group of the superorder Chelonia), characterised by a special bony or cartilaginous shell developed from their ribs that acts as a shield. "Turtle" may either refer to the Testudines as a whole, or to particular Testudines which make up a form taxon that is not monophyletic—see also sea turtle, terrapin, tortoise, and the discussion below.

The order Testudines includes both extant (living) and extinct species. The earliest known turtles date from 215 million years ago,<2> making turtles one of the oldest reptile groups and a more ancient group than lizards, snakes and Crocodiles. Of the many species alive today some are highly endangered.<3>

Like other reptiles, turtles are ectotherms—varying their internal temperature according to the ambient environment, commonly called cold-blooded. However, leatherback sea turtles have noticeably higher body temperature than surrounding water because of their high metabolic rate.

Like other amniotes (reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, and mammals), they breathe air and do not lay eggs underwater, although many species live in or around water. The largest turtles are aquatic.

Florida Box Turtle


Systematics and evolution
See also: List of Testudines families

"Chelonia" (Testudines) from Ernst Haeckel's Kunstformen der Natur, 1904.The first proto-turtles are believed to have existed in the early Triassic Period of the Mesozoic era, about 220 million years ago, and their shell, which has remained a remarkably stable body plan, is thought to have evolved from bony extensions of their backbones and broad ribs that expanded and grew together to form a complete shell that offered protection at every stage of its evolution, even when the bony component of the shell was not complete. This is supported by fossils of the freshwater Odontochelys semitestacea or "half-shelled turtle with teeth", from the late Triassic, which have been found near Guangling in south-west China. Odontochelys displays a complete bony plastron and an incomplete carapace, similar to an early stage of turtle embryonic development.<8> Prior to this discovery, the earliest-known fossil turtles were terrestrial and had a complete shell, offering no clue to the evolution of this remarkable anatomical feature. By the late Jurassic, turtles had radiated widely, and their fossil history becomes easier to read.

Their exact ancestry is disputed. It was believed that they are the only surviving branch of the ancient evolutionary grade Anapsida, which includes groups such as procolophonids, millerettids, protorothyrids, and pareiasaurs. All anapsid skulls lack a temporal opening, while all other extant amniotes have temporal openings (although in mammals the hole has become the zygomatic arch). The millerettids, protorothyrids, and pareiasaurs became extinct in the late Permian period, and the procolophonoids during the Triassic.<9>

[AsahinaKimi]

90. uM...Cowabunga dude!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bojx9BDpJks

[treestar]

84. LOL!

answer the question.

[rhett o rick]

93. The answer my friend, is blowing in the wind. The answer is blowing in the wind. nm

[Taverner]

72. Funny, everyone here agrees that we are an empire but you

Very telling...

[treestar]

85. Appeal to the bandwagon?

Everyone here may be an idiot. And likely is.

[Octafish]

51. November 22, 1963.

President Kennedy was the last guy to say "No" to the Empire. Since, then the War Party's got priority funding.

[rhett o rick]

56. .

[Jack Sprat]

52. I think they put the wheels in motion during Reagan yrs,

but the machinery began taking over during Bush I. CIA stopped working for the country and began working for the international business oligarchs.

[lunatica]

54. It's first big acquisition was from Mexico during a war with them

Manifest Destiny is what it's called.

[rhett o rick]

55. The US has always been an empire. Reagan started tightening up the oligarchy.

Bush turned on the after jets. There is too much momentum that we cant stop the progression into complete tyranny.

[Individualist]

57. The empire was solidified when neocons and neolibs began taking turns controlling the government.

[pgodbold]

65. The coffin was purchased when Regan took office however

it wasn't until the supreme court elected Bush that the last nail closed it forever.

[Xicano]

71. In 1819 from the US Supreme Court case Dartmouth v. Woodward

Here's a repost of a post I made a while back:


Corporate Sovereignty emerges during the 1600's. King Charles I granted a charter to the Massachusetts Bay Company in 1629 to colonize New England. A few decades later in 1664, King Charles II sent agents to audit the firm, which responded by challenging the King's authority.

This event provided the first recorded clash between the emergent "corporate sovereignty" and the established authority which granted it a charter. Even as early as this time there was a grassroots effort to get corporate charters limited or revoked, the British judicial process placing jurisdiction over corporate litigation into the House of Commons, etc. In short, people began to realize that corporations did not quite behave as expected or desired.

A doctor named John Locke published "Two Treatises of Government" in 1690, criticizing perpetual corporate sovereignty by introducing a notion of individual sovereignty. John Locke writes:

"The power of erecting new corporations, and therewith new representatives, carries with it a supposition that in time the measures of representation might vary, and those have a just right to be represented which before had none; and by the same reason, those cease to have a right, and be too inconsiderable for such a privilege, which before had it."

John Locke's publication criticizing corporate power played an arguable part in influencing the start of the American War of Independence, and the era of individual sovereignty which emerged. Some colonial subjects in America had tired of corporate governance and cited doctor Locke as their legal basis. The American Revolution fought to replace British corporate rule with a new republic form of government. Colonial Americans hated corporations, in the sense that they hated the Crown exercising absolute control over chartering them. In another sense, they hated missing a share of the profits. Damn them little socialists wanting to "spread the wealth".

The resulting United States Constitution made no mention of the word "corporation" whatsoever. Instead, the new United States of America enjoyed a national sovereignty. The system was built on collections of individual sovereignty posed directly against governmental tendencies that had become characteristic of corporate sovereignty.

Corporations were severely restrained within the new republic. They could only be authorized by an act of legislature in one specific state, and not at the federal level. They could only exist for a single purpose serving the public good and only then for a limited period. State legislatures held the power to revoke corporate charters, and voter referendum could initiate that process. So far, so good — so what went wrong?

In 1807, President Thomas Jefferson embargoed Britain and France, leading in part to the War of 1812. Americans needed food, so a political expediency led to a rise of corporate activity: does that sound familiar?

In response, industrialists in New England started forming corporations, explaining that they would feed and clothe the starving masses. Then, in 1819, the US Supreme Court rendered the landmark case Dartmouth College v. Woodward, citing the "contract obligation clause" of the US Constitution. That decision placed charters of existing private corporations outside the jurisdiction of the states which had chartered them. In one stroke, this provided a constitutional framework for federal corporate law, arguably disabling the primary mechanisms for control over corporations.

Corporate abuse was on the rise again, and "states rights" issues emerged from increasing federalization. Legal and political strife pushed tensions between northern and southern factions, which in general aligned along pro- and anti-corporate platforms, respectively. In 1861, the Civil War erupted, ostensibly over the moral issue of slavery and many did fight for that reason, but, as with all other wars there were other reasons - behind the scenes reasons of the rich. Arguably the Civil War was also fought over political and commercial issues. Northern industrialists distrusted the Southern plantation model, convinced that it would not support the economic expansion required for their corporations.

Slavery was abolished, and three years after the war ended the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution established "equal protection" under the law for all persons. Or was that "equal protection" for corporations?

Within two decades, in 1886, the infamous Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad case invoked the 14th Amendment to protect corporations as "legal persons" which in turn acted as agents and property of "natural persons". In other words, as constitutionally endorsed tulpas. This decision strengthened precedents established by Dartmouth v. Woodward to remove control of corporations from state/populace jurisdiction.

There you have it folks. Thirty years after the ratification of the US Constitution, the original experiment in democracy was over. Defunct by the 1819 US Supreme Court case Dartmouth College v. Woodward. Back to being worse off than they'd fared as colonists, Americans got pissed off and started to war with each other.

No matter what you learned in school (using textbooks produced by corporate publishers, no doubt) the war concerned slavery... It meant precious little about ending the subjugation of African Americans, since de facto civil rights would not even begin to happen for another hundred years! The war, however, meant much more about establishing and enforcing corporate slavery, which subsequently SCOTUS Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad practically guaranteed. America launched into its heyday of trusts, robber barons, etc.

Since then we've had some modest attempts to bridle corporate power through regulations with the very same people who claim to be American "traditionalist" (conservatives/republicans) kicking & screaming, and, fighting us "we the people" on behalf of corporate power.

Now if you're the traditionalists you claim to be then stop being so un-patriotic and anti-American and fight the fight that the early Americans you claim to mimicking fought. But you won't will you? Because lets face it, you're too stupid to realize you're fighting against your own interests and against our country's interests. Prove me wrong.

[Cleita]

74. There has always been an element of empire in our

foreign policy especially in South America because of the Monroe Doctrine. Read some of Noam Chomsky's works. He lays it all out and how it works.

[Odin2005]

75. Between 1898 and 1945.

when Western Europe and Japan were reduced to American satellites the transition was complete.

[14thColony]

78. Two types of empire, two sets of dates

Our victory over Spain and the seizure of her colonial possessions is often cited as the beginning of empire in the classical sense, so that would be 1898. But since classical empires were giving way to financial empires by the early 20th century, if we mean exerting our will over others primarily through economic means that would probably be Bretton Woods, 1944, but at the latest the initiation of the Marshall Plan in 1947.

[snooper2]

88. kick

because this thread has a lot more potential than has been shown...

[Angry Dragon]

91. raygun

[MilesColtrane]

94. Late 19th century?

Samoa? Hawaii? Puerto Rico?

[upi402]

95. Clinton = no opposition to corporatism

It was cemented then, and the DCC DLC cancer metastasized.
Clinton's NAFTA GATT and the Telecommunications Act hit it out of the park for them.
Team Clinton squelched Brooksley Born and Wall Street Banksters were off and running.

Good topic.